Brief ReportReporting of adverse events in systematic reviews can be improved: survey results
Section snippets
Background
Systematic reviews aim to give an unbiased assessment of the effects of health care interventions. Including information about both beneficial and harmful potential effects of the interventions provides people making clinical, policy, and personal decisions about a treatment with a balanced and realistic account of the likely outcomes.
However, in systematic reviews and randomized trials, the harmful or adverse effects of a particular intervention are often not reported as thoroughly as its
Objectives
The aim of this study was to assess how information about adverse events is currently included in systematic reviews, to identify problematic areas and to quantify the frequency of these problems.
Selection of systematic reviews
A systematic review is defined as a review of a clearly formulated question that uses systematic and explicit methods to identify, select and critically appraise relevant research, and to collect and analyze data from the studies that are included in the review. A meta-analysis may, or may not, be used to analyze and summarize the results of the included studies.
We searched CDSRs and included all new Cochrane reviews published in Issue 1 2005 The Cochrane Library. We also searched The Database
Results
Figure 2 shows the number of Cochrane reviews reporting adverse events as an outcome measure by area of disease. Fifty-nine of the 78 (76%) Cochrane reviews provided some mention of adverse events as an outcome measure. It is difficult to fully quantify the amount of information reported on adverse events as it varied considerably across reviews; 11 (19%) Cochrane reviews reported less than five sentences, 21 (36%) reviews reported between one and three paragraphs, 19 (32%) reviews reported
Discussion
This study provides an up-to-date assessment of how information about adverse events is currently included in systematic reviews. We show that currently most Cochrane reviews of drug and surgical interventions consider adverse events to some degree. However, the amount of detailed information varied greatly and in some Cochrane reviews only minimal information was reported on adverse events; 19% of Cochrane reviews reporting adverse events included less than five sentences about adverse events
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Deirdre Price, Anne Eisinga, and Nandi Siegfried for their help and advice in conducting this study.
References (13)
- et al.
Availability of large-scale evidence on specific harms from systematic reviews of randomized trials
Am J Med
(2004) - et al.
Completeness of safety reporting in randomized trials: an evaluation of 7 medical areas
JAMA
(2001) - et al.
Assessing harmful effects in systematic reviews
BMC Med Res Methodol
(2004) - et al.
Assessment of therapeutic safety in systematic reviews: literature review
BMJ
(2001) - et al.
Challenges in systematic reviews that assess treatment harms
Ann Intern Med
(2005) - et al.
Room for improvement? A survey of the methods used in systematic reviews of adverse effects
BMC Med Res Methodol
(2006)
Cited by (48)
Registration and Reporting Quality of Systematic Reviews on Surgical Intervention: A Meta-Epidemiological Study
2022, Journal of Surgical ResearchCitation Excerpt :Thirdly, only 51.3% of registered SRs and 21.4% of non-registered SRs reported adverse events. As these events are often rare, most SRs do not evaluate them.30 However, the reporting of “zero” and “non-zero” events is paramount in the context of surgical intervention so that surgeons can determine the risk-benefit curve of the new intervention.31,32
Most healthcare interventions tested in Cochrane Reviews are not effective according to high quality evidence: a systematic review and meta-analysis
2022, Journal of Clinical EpidemiologyHarms in Systematic Reviews Paper 1: An introduction to research on harms
2022, Journal of Clinical EpidemiologyCitation Excerpt :Although the current paradigm for conducting systematic reviews of interventions recommends that harms be assessed so that there can be a balanced discussion of potential benefits and harms, most reviews are not designed to assess harms rigorously[6,11,78–80] and might reach conclusions that are misleading or wrong. Early assessments of systematic review methods and reporting of harms revealed limitations in the approaches taken by reviewers to assessing harms at each stage of the review process, including: restrictions on the sources that are searched for evidence and the types of studies included, limitations in the analyses of harms, and poor reporting of methods used to assess harms (Box 6).[58,78–86] Common limitations in harm assessment in systematic reviews
Harms in Systematic Reviews Paper 2: Methods used to assess harms are neglected in systematic reviews of gabapentin
2022, Journal of Clinical EpidemiologyMore than one-third of systematic reviews did not fully report the adverse events outcome
2019, Journal of Clinical EpidemiologyAdverse Effects of Psychotropic Medications: A Call to Action
2016, Psychiatric Clinics of North AmericaCitation Excerpt :Clinical trials for the prevention and treatment of adverse effects that are clinically important need to be given more attention than they currently are. As discussed previously, for antidepressant-induced excessive sweating, a common, distressing, and persistent adverse effect of almost all antidepressants, no clinical trial of any treatment was conducted until recently.34 Similarly, for drug holidays as a strategy for managing antidepressant-induced sexual dysfunction, an uncontrolled clinical trial published in 1995 was positive,38 but no confirmatory study has been done since then.
Conflicts of Interest: This study has been carried out as part of the program of methodological research being undertaken at the UK Cochrane Centre, which is funded by the National Health Service Research and Development Programme. The views expressed in this article represent those of the authors and are not necessarily the views or the official policy of The Cochrane Collaboration.